From: tom brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-07 16:48:52
The current schedule allows ten days for each review.
It has been brought to my attention that this is too aggressive.
For the next couple of reviews, I will contact the library review managers
to arrange new start dates to allow for longer review periods and to also
ensure that they do not overlap. In my next status report, I will explain
this change in the schedule and try to contact the remaining library
authors for new start dates.
1) The review process is slow.
2) The current backlog of libraries to review is quite large.
3) Some libraries have been waiting to be reviewed for 6 or more months.
4) To few reviews of the boost libraries. I would like to see more people
participate in the review process.
5) The policy of not allowing overalaping review dates means that I will not
be able to plan ahead more than about 2 to 3 weeks.
6) Not having firm start dates could be a source of frustration for library
authors if they have other commitments.
7) The reason for not having overalpping reviews is based on the preference
for a flexible review schedule. This flexibility, however, has a large cost
in terms of not being able to provide firm start dates for our library
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Hi all -
>> Our review wizard, Tom B. has suggested to me that we allow
>> subsequent reviews to begin even if a previous review has been
>> extended. This means 2 or more reviews will possibly be running in
>> parallel. I don't believe we have a written policy, but I'm quite
>> certain we have never run reviews in parallel. I also think it is a
>> very bad idea.
> I agree completely. But we haven't heard from Tom; maybe he had
> something particular in mind that makes it OK?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk